Author
Topic: How do you Prove Perspective? (Read 4657 times)

Perspective in theory of cognition is the choice of a context or a reference (or the result of this choice) from which to sense, categorize, measure or codify experience, cohesively forming a coherent belief, typically for comparing with another. One may further recognize a number of subtly distinctive meanings, close to those of paradigm, point of view, reality tunnel, umwelt, or weltanschauung.

To choose a perspective is to choose a value system and, unavoidably, an associated belief system. When we look at a business perspective, we are looking at a monetary base values system and beliefs. When we look at a human perspective, it is a more social value system and its associated beliefs.

I watched an episode, it was probably Through the Wormhole, about perspective. I will have to admit that it was rather complicated, mind boggling stuff. I am honestly trying to improve my "post style." Provide evidence. So here is my evidence that you can't provide evidence for perspective. The part that I found most interesting is how magicians use perspective to deceive the brain, which I have heard described as "the most powerful", dang I'm sorry, I can't remember. Point is the human brain is remarkable and it amazed me how easily a change in perspective fools the brain.

I have a feeling this is going to get over my head but what the hell you only live once!!!

First of all, we need to accept that we all see the world through our own cultural biases. You and I (I think) tend to believe in the "goodness" of people, and we usually use that filter when we analyze the actions of others. I know that I tend to forgive people who have experienced harsh realities from actions that I find offensive, because that is the filter through which I see the world. I tend to attribute their offensive actions to their life experiences, and hold them to a different set of standards which is more forgiving. There are others here on this forum who are more dismissive of folks who do things that they find offensive. And perhaps, if we are open, we can learn from each other.

I am NOT a scientist, but one of the crucial aspects of the scientific method is peer review. If one society believes that putting idols in the field will increase rainfall during a drought (because rainfall comes every year at the same time, which coincides with their annual festival of placing idols in the field) it may be hard to convince members of that society that it is weather patterns, or the coming of the rainy season, rather than the idols, which causes the rain. This belief may be so deeply engrained in the belief system of the society, that everyone "KNOWS" that placing the idols causes the rain. There may even be taboos against placing idols at other times of the year, because that would anger the gods. But for someone outside of the culture, it would be pretty easy to prove that it is the weather patterns, not the idols, that cause the rain.

We live in what has been labeled by some as "the information age." Of course, the ability to record and share information across time and space has been increasing exponentially since we became capable of writing and reading and recording what we have learned. The invention of paper, and then the printing press speeded up our ability to build upon the knowledge of others, and to learn about their assumptions and test them. The ability to communicate our findings across oceans, in real time, has advanced scientific discovery at an exponential rate. And now, with the use of the internet, and shared access to satellites, we can compare our findings in real time with someone who is literally on the opposite side of the planet. Scientific discoveries are built upon previous discoveries, and findings are tested by people who speak different languages, who came out of different educational systems, and who may bring with them their own unique perspectives. When these folks find the same evidence, we can be pretty sure that we are moving in the right direction.

This is, of course, an overly simplified overview of my perspective on perspective.

Does it address some of issues which brought you to ask this important question?

Perspective in theory of cognition is the choice of a context or a reference (or the result of this choice) from which to sense, categorize, measure or codify experience, cohesively forming a coherent belief, typically for comparing with another. One may further recognize a number of subtly distinctive meanings, close to those of paradigm, point of view, reality tunnel, umwelt, or weltanschauung.

Perspective is like "weather" you can't have "no weather".

The trick with perspective is to choose what is relevant to the whole argument, for and against.

You will find that it is often easier to give solutions to somebody else's problem rather than your own. Your own problems are seen as entirely subjective - the problems of others can be seen with at least some objectivity. That is why they are clearer and easier to solve.

However, solving someone else's problems also involves believing what is right for you is right for them, and so should be approached with a perspective of generalisation.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

The trick with perspective is to choose what is relevant to the whole argument, for and against.

You will find that it is often easier to give solutions to somebody else's problem rather than your own. Your own problems are seen as entirely subjective - the problems of others can be seen with at least some objectivity. That is why they are clearer and easier to solve.

However, solving someone else's problems also involves believing what is right for you is right for them, and so should be approached with a perspective of generalisation.

Yes I agree. Sometimes I have success asking myself what I would tell a friend in the same situation when self advising.

What I'm interested in discussing is how different perspectives leads to division among the masses and how do we ever get close to agreeing on our perceptions.

If you invite 100 people (aged 10 or higher) into a room that contains a red ball lying on the floor, they will each have their own perspective when asked what they see within the room. What do you think the results would be?

I can only know what my perspective would be unless the group of people told me theirs. I'm interested though. Please enlighten me. What would the results be?

Can each one of those people provide evidence of their perspective?

I think we all have different experiences so our perspective of the world can not be the same. It also seems that even if experiences are identical perspective can be different. It has something to do with our brains, I think.

If you invite 100 people (aged 10 or higher) into a room that contains a red ball lying on the floor, they will each have their own perspective when asked what they see within the room. What do you think the results would be?

I actually struggle to see how responses could go beyond "a ball" or "a red ball"

My point, is that it will most likely be an overwhelming sense of agreement among the 100. Regardless of perspective, or any other physical or metaphysical considerations, the group agrees. There is certainly a possibility that someone in the group has never seen a red ball, or the color red, or a ball in any combination, but that person would be what is sometimes referred to as an outlier - or more precisely, missing data. If a list of responses was built, and someone did not have an answer, the record would show a missing response, which is still considered valid for the study.

If one or more people are color blind, then we will see a few records that do not indicate the common color of red, but still, that is valid data, and could be explained using current understanding of color blindness. Those are outliers in that they do not respond with the same answer, but their response is equally valid due to the limitation on their sense of color.

The purpose of the study is to determine the agreement of the responses using a distribution. In this case, it is most likely going to show a very high percentage of same responses, a red ball in the room. Today, we can do these kinds of basic experiments for all sorts of questions, and have a high degree of confidence in the results. Keep in mind, in a real study, the 100 people would be chosen randomly among a defined population and/or set of criteria (between certain ages, both male and female, etc.).

When it comes to perspectives on things like personal beliefs, we enter a different arena altogether. Take the finest piece of art ever created, according to art critics, and you will probably get a lower level of agreement on whether that piece of art is worthy of such a title. Same with music. Even the most popular selling song in history would not come with a high level of agreement on attributes of what makes a song great. It starts to break down when subjective, personal feelings and beliefs, likes, or dislikes come into play.

I think it is an interesting thought to consider that we have no way of truly understanding each others perspectives, as they are unique to each of us - but probably not that unique depending on the topic being considered. I do believe that the nuances that come into play when we get into religious or spiritual beliefs are probably impossible to pin down, outside of anchors like "Christianity", "Jesus", Heaven or hell, and other very common ideas attached to much more common belief systems. That's why we invented SPAG!

Cognitive Perspective is what I'm trying to understand. How we can all be so different in our perspectives of spiritual, religious beliefs.

How is it possible that a baby born in Kansas grow up speaking English and one born in Paris grows up speaking French?

How come some people are afraid of spiders, and some not? Why do you like tomatoes and I hate them?

The answer is “it is a mixture of nurture (how you are brought up) and experience (what sticks with you as you grow up)”

It seems to me that there are times in your life at which you are very susceptible to suggestion. These are not the long periods learning maths or English: the ones I am talking about are short, very short, periods where something really embeds itself in your mind. It need not be dramatic; it could be just like taking a random photo, but is sticks and helps shape your mind.

You can read what I have written here and then someone else can do the same. Will you both have exactly the same understanding and agreement? No. Why? Because you are individuals who place weight on certain concepts and not on others.

None of us have the same nurture or experiences, so by the time we reach adulthood, our view of the world – our perspective – has been individually set.

In fact, it is perhaps easier to see why we have differing perspectives: even identical twins do not say and do the same things all the time. Yes, they can be similar, but never the same and they argue... why?

It gets more interesting:

I think it was Noam Chomsky who suggested that even the same word will mean different things to different people: If I say “Window” to me it is a white plastic framed oblong with a centre of glass. The centre is subdivided into smaller windows and the ones on the outside are openable. If I said “Window” to an African tribesman, he may well think of a hole in a wall of a mud hut.

When you read “Window” what did you think? It's perspective.

So we all see the world in a slightly different way. Usually it doesn’t matter. It is when people insist that their way is the only way (because that is the way that works for them) that the trouble begins. Unless they can show that their way is, objectively, more likely to be right, then it is wrong for them to insist on their way.

Extreme perspective comes when you cannot put yourself in another person’s place, really don’t care about them and cannot listen to reason. And conversely, it comes when you think you know how everyone feels. You should not do the first and cannot do the latter. The truth lies in the middle.

If perspective were a colour, it might be blue. We are happy if it is light blue or dark blue, but we are unhappy if someone’s perspective is red or green or yellow: they are in trouble and will cause trouble.

Why do you think there is some god up there taking an interest in you? All of those things above: your parents did it, your friends did it; at some point something "god-ish" impressed you; you have a clear idea of what a god is (although words don't seem to be enough.) That's how you have lived your life. You don't like to think of an alternative, it would be like someone putting 5 pounds of tomatoes in front of me and telling me that I'd like them. I'd have to get over the vomiting bit - you only need suffer the slight discomfort of applying some logic.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 05:06:39 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

If you invite 100 people (aged 10 or higher) into a room that contains a red ball lying on the floor, they will each have their own perspective when asked what they see within the room. What do you think the results would be?

I actually struggle to see how responses could go beyond "a ball" or "a red ball"

It was pointed out to me via PM that I forgot a very obvious response, if you happen to be Australian or English. (Or Pakistani, Indian, South African, West Indian, Bangladeshi, New Zealander, Sri Lankan or Kenyan).

It's a cricket ball! Possibly the one used by Australia to rout the English in Perth yesterday.

Cognitive Perspective is what I'm trying to understand. How we can all be so different in our perspectives of spiritual, religious beliefs.

Thanks for your response Jetson but it does not address the topic at all. I want to know how to prove perspective. Do you have any thoughts on that. Thanks.

We differ in our perspectives for so many reasons. Our perspective begins to develop as soon as we are able to experience our surroundings and is colored by every success and failure we have, the treatment we receive from our parents, teachers, peers, every compliment and criticism, whether we are loved, neglected or abused. We internalize what we learn in school, the media, from our parents, extended family, whatever we read or absorb. Our perspective continues to grow, change and develop as we get older. We have different perspectives that apply to what ever situation we are in or topic we are discussing. Some people are able to recognize different perspectives and agree to disagree. Others simply can not tolerate anyone who thinks differently than they do. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Perspective can not be proven. It can only be illustrated.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Cognitive Perspective is what I'm trying to understand. How we can all be so different in our perspectives of spiritual, religious beliefs.

Thanks for your response Jetson but it does not address the topic at all. I want to know how to prove perspective. Do you have any thoughts on that. Thanks.

Perspective: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

By this definition, I'm not sure what you would like to prove? If this is an accurate definition of perspective, then my red ball experiment would ask the question: What do you think about this room, and its contents? To which we would get a broader set of replies, I think. But not so broad as to be able to show that one or another are more or less accurate.

Let me first say that I believe if there is a god his interest is the whole not in just me. I believe that a god would have just as much interest in you.

I believe in a supreme creator because I think random chance is less logical for such complex lifeforms to exist. Is it not possible that while everything in the universe, including those elements vital for life as we know it, were condensed into a small ball of energy a supreme being was created that helped form the earth into a life giving planet?

I have never tried to force any body here to believe what I believe. I have only shared my perspective. I don't fear your souls are in danger of eternal damnation so why would I? I just enjoy the conversation; the challenge.

Cognitive Perspective is what I'm trying to understand. How we can all be so different in our perspectives of spiritual, religious beliefs.

Thanks for your response Jetson but it does not address the topic at all. I want to know how to prove perspective. Do you have any thoughts on that. Thanks.

We differ in our perspectives for so many reasons. Our perspective begins to develop as soon as we are able to experience our surroundings and is colored by every success and failure we have, the treatment we receive from our parents, teachers, peers, every compliment and criticism, whether we are loved, neglected or abused. We internalize what we learn in school, the media, from our parents, extended family, whatever we read or absorb. Our perspective continues to grow, change and develop as we get older. We have different perspectives that apply to what ever situation we are in or topic we are discussing. Some people are able to recognize different perspectives and agree to disagree. Others simply can not tolerate anyone who thinks differently than they do. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Perspective can not be proven. It can only be illustrated.

LPA,

You hit the nail on the head by golly! That's the point I've been trying to make. You can not prove perspective. You can explain it, you can illustrate it sometimes, but you can not prove it. Perspective is what belief/non belief is. We have no obvious answer to the question why/how are we here so we all have a perspective on the subject because most of us want to know if there is a "final destination". I don't believe that evolution causes us to ask these questions but that it is a spiritual purpose does. Evolution to me explains why we have a thumb but it does not explain why we think deeply about such things when none of the other millions of life forms on this planet does.

Getting back to what you said about illustration. It is not negative illustrations of belief that can cause so much harm to society/individuals whether it is believing in god or not believing in god?

Cognitive Perspective is what I'm trying to understand. How we can all be so different in our perspectives of spiritual, religious beliefs.

Thanks for your response Jetson but it does not address the topic at all. I want to know how to prove perspective. Do you have any thoughts on that. Thanks.

Perspective: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

By this definition, I'm not sure what you would like to prove? If this is an accurate definition of perspective, then my red ball experiment would ask the question: What do you think about this room, and its contents? To which we would get a broader set of replies, I think. But not so broad as to be able to show that one or another are more or less accurate.

"I think its a room with a red ball in it."

"I think its a weird question."

"I'm not sure, but the red ball tells me it must be a kids room."

"Am I on a blooper show?"

"When I walk into the room, I am reminded of the simplicity of life."

and so on...

Now we are on the right road Jetson. Your answer there reminds me of this place. So many different perspectives. So which one in your list is right? Could it be they are all right?

Traveler,

Yes that's pretty much what I am asking. Any thoughts on the subject of perspective is welcome though. How does one measure the credibility of another's objectivity w/o the same brain and life experiences?

I believe in a supreme creator because I think random chance is less logical for such complex lifeforms to exist. Is it not possible that while everything in the universe, including those elements vital for life as we know it, were condensed into a small ball of energy a supreme being was created that helped form the earth into a life giving planet?

No. I say "No" because what you propose is infinitely more complex than just a set of chemicals turning into life. It is so difficult to understand that people can't understand it and then say "It involves magic." The creator would have to have more information that the universe could contain to create a universe, and then there is the difficulty of where he got the stuff from to make the universe.

Perhaps you can explain that?

We know enough about extremely dense matter to know what happened from far less than 1 second from the beginning of the universe, and we know, by observing other stars, etc, how planetary systems develop. And out planet did the same.

Quote

I just enjoy the conversation; the challenge.

But you are not rising to the challenge, are you? All you do is say, "God did it." and, as I explain, that is no answer at all - we want to know how he did it.

Quote

LPA,

You hit the nail on the head by golly! That's the point I've been trying to make. You can not prove perspective. You can explain it, you can illustrate it sometimes, but you can not prove it.

We do not need to prove perspective, but if we do, it is very easy as LPA (and I) said: Perspective can be seen (hence proven) by asking two people about one idea.

There have been many experiments along these lines, Noam Chomsky did a few and "proved" perspective.

However, it may be that you are using the word "prove" in a different sense to the rest of us... If so, you might like to explain what you mean by "You can not prove perspective."

Quote

Perspective: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

So how can we "prove" that? It seems like you are asking us to "prove an apple."

Quote

How does one measure the credibility of another's objectivity w/o the same brain and life experiences?

It is not that difficult: You say you perceive a unicorn in your garden; I come round with a few friends, none of us see it - your perception is faulty.

You say some god poofed the unicorn into existence, and then made it invisible. We ask, "How did he do that then?" You say, "It's a mystery." We all dismiss your perspective because it outside all experience and all probable experience.You say, "I've got beer for everyone in the house." We all go in and there are cans of beer on the table - we accept your perspective.You tell us that it was a gift from the gods and it just appeared, but we see the Wal-Mart labels - Your perspective is out.We all get drunk and think it is funny to put your dog up the tree - our perspective is out.

We judge other's perspective by a very broad set of criteria - some people agree with the death penalty, others don't - all are reasonable lines of though. Some people think that torturing kittens is fun - most of us don't, so the torturer's perspective is out.

But when it comes to gods, there is, like the unicorn, nobody there.

Perspective is just an individual way of seeing things that is informed, as we have said by experiences. Nobody has the same, but when we average all the "perspectives" out we have "normality".

« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 10:02:20 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I believe in a supreme creator because I think random chance is less logical for such complex lifeforms to exist. Is it not possible that while everything in the universe, including those elements vital for life as we know it, were condensed into a small ball of energy a supreme being was created that helped form the earth into a life giving planet?

From what we know of the universe, there is no indication of a supreme being.

While one could exist, however improbable, science simply does not make assumptions, and instead makes models of reality.

I have never tried to force any body here to believe what I believe. I have only shared my perspective. I don't fear your souls are in danger of eternal damnation so why would I? I just enjoy the conversation; the challenge.

So you believe in a soul, okay.What is a soul? Exactly?I must stress that a "soul" has so many meanings...As a question, if our souls are not in danger, does this imply heaven? Or does it imply that atheists simply die like all other organisms?For that matter, do other animals have souls?

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

I believe in a supreme creator because I think random chance is less logical for such complex lifeforms to exist. Is it not possible that while everything in the universe, including those elements vital for life as we know it, were condensed into a small ball of energy a supreme being was created that helped form the earth into a life giving planet?

From my perspective, a supreme being who is capable of creating the universe is far more complex than the universe itself. So, where did the creator come from? I can't get past that question in order to see things from a theist's perspective.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

I believe in a supreme creator because I think random chance is less logical for such complex lifeforms to exist. Is it not possible that while everything in the universe, including those elements vital for life as we know it, were condensed into a small ball of energy a supreme being was created that helped form the earth into a life giving planet?

From my perspective, a supreme being who is capable of creating the universe is far more complex than the universe itself. So, where did the creator come from? I can't get past that question in order to see things from a theist's perspective.

In my scenario the universe and God were created at the same time. Just think about it. All that is necessary for life was highly condensed. This could have very well created a supreme life form.

I believe in a supreme creator because I think random chance is less logical for such complex lifeforms to exist. Is it not possible that while everything in the universe, including those elements vital for life as we know it, were condensed into a small ball of energy a supreme being was created that helped form the earth into a life giving planet?

No. I say "No" because what you propose is infinitely more complex than just a set of chemicals turning into life. It is so difficult to understand that people can't understand it and then say "It involves magic." The creator would have to have more information that the universe could contain to create a universe, and then there is the difficulty of where he got the stuff from to make the universe.

Perhaps you can explain that?

We know enough about extremely dense matter to know what happened from far less than 1 second from the beginning of the universe, and we know, by observing other stars, etc, how planetary systems develop. And out planet did the same.

Quote

I just enjoy the conversation; the challenge.

But you are not rising to the challenge, are you? All you do is say, "God did it." and, as I explain, that is no answer at all - we want to know how he did it.

Quote

LPA,

You hit the nail on the head by golly! That's the point I've been trying to make. You can not prove perspective. You can explain it, you can illustrate it sometimes, but you can not prove it.

We do not need to prove perspective, but if we do, it is very easy as LPA (and I) said: Perspective can be seen (hence proven) by asking two people about one idea.

There have been many experiments along these lines, Noam Chomsky did a few and "proved" perspective.

However, it may be that you are using the word "prove" in a different sense to the rest of us... If so, you might like to explain what you mean by "You can not prove perspective."

Quote

Perspective: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.

So how can we "prove" that? It seems like you are asking us to "prove an apple."

Quote

How does one measure the credibility of another's objectivity w/o the same brain and life experiences?

It is not that difficult: You say you perceive a unicorn in your garden; I come round with a few friends, none of us see it - your perception is faulty.

You say some god poofed the unicorn into existence, and then made it invisible. We ask, "How did he do that then?" You say, "It's a mystery." We all dismiss your perspective because it outside all experience and all probable experience.You say, "I've got beer for everyone in the house." We all go in and there are cans of beer on the table - we accept your perspective.You tell us that it was a gift from the gods and it just appeared, but we see the Wal-Mart labels - Your perspective is out.We all get drunk and think it is funny to put your dog up the tree - our perspective is out.

We judge other's perspective by a very broad set of criteria - some people agree with the death penalty, others don't - all are reasonable lines of though. Some people think that torturing kittens is fun - most of us don't, so the torturer's perspective is out.

But when it comes to gods, there is, like the unicorn, nobody there.

Perspective is just an individual way of seeing things that is informed, as we have said by experiences. Nobody has the same, but when we average all the "perspectives" out we have "normality".

Well just by reading this I see you don't understand plain English. I don't just say God did it. I have never said God poofed anything GB. I believe God is the master of science/ all things. That it is from superior intelligence and knowledge that God does God's work.

According to the last part of this post there are more believers than non believers does that make the believer "normal" and the non believers perspective out.

Just because there are wal mart labels on the beer doesn't mean that it wasn't a gift from god it just means that's where it was bought. Perhaps what the person meant was I received a $40 gift from god so I went and bought us all some beer. Maybe God disguised himself as human went in wal mart and bought some beer.

Any way refer to traveler's response from me, she made the same mistake interpreting what I posted, that may enlighten you as to what you really read instead of what you thought you read.

As far as I'm concerned I'm meeting the challenge just fine thank you. I do like the way you punched that in there though. I don't much care what the opinion is of some one that takes cheap shots, says I say things I don't and misquotes posts.

I believe in a supreme creator because I think random chance is less logical for such complex lifeforms to exist. Is it not possible that while everything in the universe, including those elements vital for life as we know it, were condensed into a small ball of energy a supreme being was created that helped form the earth into a life giving planet?

From what we know of the universe, there is no indication of a supreme being.

While one could exist, however improbable, science simply does not make assumptions, and instead makes models of reality.

I have never tried to force any body here to believe what I believe. I have only shared my perspective. I don't fear your souls are in danger of eternal damnation so why would I? I just enjoy the conversation; the challenge.

So you believe in a soul, okay.What is a soul? Exactly?I must stress that a "soul" has so many meanings...As a question, if our souls are not in danger, does this imply heaven? Or does it imply that atheists simply die like all other organisms?For that matter, do other animals have souls?

We have only just begun to uncover the "mysteries" of the universe. IOW, we don't know much. Scientist also make atomic bombs which could end reality as we know it.

What is a soul? IMO, it is the breath of life. W/o souls I don't believe we'd be here. So yes I think all living things have souls. I do not however believe all things have a conscience. Just humans.

To me to change the speed of light is an assumption made only to prove a theory, string theory. If there is a god, however improbable, then the models that are made are not reality. It should be at least a model with the possibility of God.

To me to change the speed of light is an assumption made only to prove a theory, string theory. If there is a god, however improbable, then the models that are made are not reality. It should be at least a model with the possibility of God.

I thought we already changed the speed of light, by putting it through different materials...The models made only show what we can calculate, perhaps one day a "god" might be in there, but i would not hold my breath.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Well just by reading this I see you don't understand plain English. I don't just say God did it. I have never said God poofed anything GB. I believe God is the master of science/ all things. That it is from superior intelligence and knowledge that God does God's work.

If that is the case, and I cannot see that it is, why does he make so many mistakes?

Quote

According to the last part of this post there are more believers than non believers does that make the believer "normal" and the non believers perspective out.?

If I am frank, I don't think anyone could be impressed with that point. What you believe in one specific area does not necessarily influence what you do in another and therefore, and this is common, believers often simply set aside their religious views when solving practical problems. Religion is compartmentalised in the brain.

e..g The Bible prohibits charging interest, it advocates various capital punishments, it talks of witches and unicorns and of curing illness by praying. It speaks to us of giving away all our money. We see people give the defence of, "God told me to do it.", and we know that God never told anyone to do anything.

However, on another level, you have come close to saying why things are regarded as "normal". But you fail to realise what "normal" means in this context. In this context, an irrational belief is being described as "normal". "Normal" does not mean that something is correct: it means that it is a "norm."

As you are keen on Merriam, here's the definition:norms : standards of proper or acceptable behavior

the norm : an average level of development or achievement

the norm : something (such as a behavior or way of doing something) that is usual or expected.

See, there is nothing to say that it is "correct": it is merely normal. "Correct" and "normal" are two different words.

In various parts of the world, putting a large plate in your lip is "normal"

Quote

LPA said perspective can not be proven only illustrated.

Yes, and so did I when I asked you to "prove" an apple.

Quote

Just because there are wal mart labels on the beer doesn't mean that it wasn't a gift from god it just means that's where it was bought. Perhaps what the person meant was I received a $40 gift from god so I went and bought us all some beer. Maybe God disguised himself as human went in wal mart and bought some beer.

...and nobody would believe that but it seems to me that God buying beer in Wal-Mart is far more likely than God's making/populating/designing a universe.

Quote

Any way refer to traveler's response from me, she made the same mistake interpreting what I posted,

Well, if two of us receive the same message, is the message at fault?

Quote

I'm using the word prove as is defined by Webster.

I don't think that you are:

Merriam: prove, verb: to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc.

You cannot say, "Prove perspective" because (i) you cannot say "prove an apple" (ii) You can say, "Prove how perspective works!" or "Prove that perspective does exist." and I think that we have done both. You can say, "prove that your perspective is valid" but you are not asking for proof of perspective, you are asking for proof of its validity.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 06:26:40 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I really can not believe that you went to nick picking the word prove. That is a difficult word not to use properly. So pitiful.

Mistakes? I'd like to see you do better. This planet and the life on it has thrived for millions of years and counting. The problems of this world are with mankind not God. God does not force people to do any thing.

It is definitely possible that two people make the same mistake in interpreting a phrase. What I posted clearly suggests that God was created simultaneously with the universe.

Quote

If I am frank, I don't think anyone could be impressed with that point. What you believe in one specific area does not necessarily influence what you do in another and therefore, and this is common, believers often simply set aside their religious views when solving practical problems. Religion is compartmentalised in the brain.

I was just using the example you gave me. lol You said the majority rules not me. So were you right then or are you right now?

I'm glad I'm not religious!

What I believe spiritually definitely does influence my behavior. It dictates how I solve emotional issues especially. I don't use it to find my car keys. I use it to deal with my fellow man, for strength, courage and acceptance. I have used it for strength to fight cancer, childhood abuse, and forgiveness to those that have offended me. You might be able to do these things w/o spiritual influence but IDK, it helps me deal man.

Quote

Yes, and so did I when I asked you to "prove" an apple.

I wish you would make up your mind! Your just weaseling here. Your in a corner and this doesn't break you out. Not even close, frankly.

You never "asked" me to prove an apple you used that as a comparison to proving perspective. Comparing something as simple as proving an apple to the complicated subject of perspective was lame in the first place.

Quote

...and nobody would believe that but it seems to me that God buying beer in Wal-Mart is far more likely than God's making/populating/designing a universe.

The lower case letters I used was meant as disrespect. I was just making fun of your example GB. I don't believe God operates in the physical world this way. I do believe God provides us with plenty of food if we could only learn to share it and respect it.

Maybe my theory is just to complicated for you to understand, I digress.

In the beginning, according to science all matter was condensed and then exploded, The Big Bang, right?

I'm saying that while all this matter was condensed that a supreme life form could have been formed there. What happens when you condense something? It gets stronger, more powerful, right?

Was not all the matter necessary for life not in this very, very,very,very... highly condensed object?

You can prove an apple very easily. See what I mean one minute you say you can prove perspective then you say you can't. Getting dizzy here.

To me to change the speed of light is an assumption made only to prove a theory, string theory. If there is a god, however improbable, then the models that are made are not reality. It should be at least a model with the possibility of God.

I thought we already changed the speed of light, by putting it through different materials...The models made only show what we can calculate, perhaps one day a "god" might be in there, but i would not hold my breath.

Your first thought seems misplaced. I am not mistaken here AA. Scientist don't even know what 98% of the universe is composed of. Ever heard of "dark matter". 2% is not a lot of knowledge. I am equipped with the same basic knowledge of science as you are. So if I'm arguing from ignorance so are you. Now if I were using a Bible to theorize I would be.

I don't have enough time to get into the soul right now. I go see the radiologist this morning to discuss my radiation treatment. Plus I need to ponder deeper into my thoughts before answering this very important question. Thank you for your patience.

One point before I go. You can't just throw that stuff in a bowl and have a human.

I don't have enough time to get into the soul right now. I go see the radiologist this morning to discuss my radiation treatment. Plus I need to ponder deeper into my thoughts before answering this very important question. Thank you for your patience.

One point before I go. You can't just throw that stuff in a bowl and have a human.

Using nothing more than those molecules? Perhaps, if said bowl allowed tearing apart atoms, using the protons/electrons/neutrons, and setting them exactly into a human form.

Although, the elements i listed are not what organisms are made of, they are what makes up most of the atmosphere (hence i said it at your breath of life statement).

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.